Music education--should it be required?

[Josquin des Prez]

Many schools in the west (and in America in particular) can't even instill enough discipline for the students to pay attention to the subjects that are already part of the curriculum. I don't see how making musical education compulsory (a fine a idea under other circumstances) is going to help a whole lot when the "kids" are more likely to worry about their next high or one night stand then receiving something of value to their lives, where as those few remaining kids who are still conscientious enough to benefit from this are probably too busy trying to survive in the prison-like dog eat dog atmosphere of modern schools without having to blow their brains out first and perhaps take some of their fellow students with them in the process. By all means though, keep pouring money into education so that the kids can have a cleaner and more modernized environment in which to sell drugs or copulate in.

[karlhenning]

Many schools in the west (and in America in particular) can't even instill enough discipline for the students to pay attention to the subjects that are already part of the curriculum.

Where did you study, again?

[Josquin des Prez]

Where did you study, again?

Public school. What about you?

[karlhenning]

Public school.

In the West?

[DavidW]

I don't think that sex and drugs is that big of an issue in elementary school!

But there are many children with family problems, sometimes severe, and school becomes less of a learning environment and more of a shelter from the storm.  In a classroom where you have to deal with those students and the apathetic crowd and the bright honors students it is difficult to get the job done.

I'm glad that I don't do that!

[Wilhelm Richard]

This is the way to do it --

At the heart of the Kodály Method is Kodály's belief that music literacy is the right of every human being. Kodály stressed that anyone who is capable of reading language is also capable of reading music (Choksy 1999:16). He urged that music education be accessible to everyone, not just to the musically gifted (Landis 1972:41). He felt that no education could be complete without music, and that it was therefore the schools' obligation to offer quality music instruction. Kodály stressed that music be taught daily as a part of the core curriculum and given equal importance as to language and mathematics (Choksy 1999:16).

Kodály believed that, to be effective, musical learning must begin with singing (Choksy 1981:7). He stressed that only through use of the voice could the musical ear be developed (Dobszay 1972:25). Even instrumentalists, Kodály argued, must begin their musical training with singing in order to gain an understanding of music outside the mechanics of their instrument (Eösze 1962:80). Kodály recommended that instrumental instruction not begin until a student has achieved a certain level of musical literacy (Landis 1972:40).

Kodály was of the opinion that, in order for a child to fully realize his or her musical potential, it is necessary that he or she begin musical training at an early age (Choksy 1981:7). Kodály emphasized that children must learn to read music at the same time as they learn to read language (Russell-Smith 1967:43). Kodály felt that children between ages three and seven are most sensitive to music, and therefore good musical instruction is crucial at this time if the musical ear is to be fully developed (DeVries 2001:25). Kodály recommended that musical training begin no later than in Kindergarten and the primary grades (Choksy 1981:7).

Also central to the Kodály Method is the philosophy that, as a child naturally learns his mother tongue before learning foreign languages, so should he learn his musical mother tongue, that is, the folk music of his native language, before learning foreign music (Choksy 1999:2). Kodály believed that the use of native folk music is most valuable in helping children develop basic music skills because of its familiarity to children through real-life musical experiences (Landis 1972:62).

Kodály also believed that only music of the highest quality should be used in the education of children (Choksy 1981:. He felt that children are more sensitive to art than adults, and would therefore only reach their full potential through the use of the finest music (Landis 1972:60). Kodály expressed distaste for the inferior "educational music" used in the schools, claiming that exposure to this type of music as a child would prevent one from being able to appreciate high-quality music as an adult (61). He stressed that no composer should feel that he is too great to write children's music; on the contrary, he must strive to be good enough to do so (Russell-Smith 1967:43-44).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kod%C3%A1ly_Method

(Sorry for the cut and paste, but I am short for time.  I will say quickly that I have experienced the results of Kodaly training firsthand and it is phenomenal and I am willing to discuss and defend, if necessary, it here when time permits.)

[secondwind]

Thanks to everyone for the fascinating posts so far.  My question was sparked by a number of things, including:

My father's story (which he repeated on suitable occasions up to and including the last year of his life, when he was 80) of how much he regretted that the music appreciation class at his high school was canceled due to budget cuts (not a new problem) the year before he was eligible to take it.  He loved music but felt that he knew little about it.  Although he took some college level engineering classes, he did not earn a college degree and never found a way to include formal study of music in his life.  Would music education of some sort have made a difference in his life?

The story of a young friend of mine, who pressed for instrumental lessons from the age of 4 until she began to study piano at 5.  I watched her learn to read print and music at the same time, and pondered how that early start might affect her.  Now at 7 she has declared that piano is "boring" and she doesn't want to practice--but she wants to sing.  What should her parents do?

The music education I had:  Like Karl, I first learned music in public school in the US, for me starting with clarinet class in the 6th grade (about age 12).  If there was any type of music instruction before that, I sure can't remember it.  My music education was improved immensely when my high school band director told my parents he thought I'd benefit from private lessons.  Somehow they managed to afford it, for which I am eternally grateful.  The two years or so that I spent with a good clarinet teacher gave me the opportunity to develop more competence on the instrument and, I think, made the difference for me between being someone who plays during high school and then not again, and someone for whom classical music has become a compelling interest and instrumental music a lifelong (I hope) joy.

The music education I didn't have:  from fairly early in childhood I was aware that there were these marvelous beasts called pianos and some people could get music out of them.  I would have liked to learn, but we had no piano and I understood that money for an instrument and lessons was just not available.  If I had had the opportunity to learn, how would my life be different now?  Would I have wanted to quit at 7 (or 9 or 11), or would I have continued? 

The story of a friend who is a very fine amateur pianist.  He began piano study in kindergarten because his kindergarten teacher recommended it to his parents as a way to decrease his hyperactive behavior and increase his ability to focus.  (Today he'd probably just be given Ritalin!)  He now has a PhD and a responsible career, so I guess the focus problem has been solved, and he also has a remarkable skill that gives him (and many others) much pleasure.  Where would he be if he hadn't learned piano?

I am finding the last post from Wilhelm Richard especially interesting.  I had never heard of the Kodaly Method.  I'll certainly learn more about it.

I am aware of the problems facing our public schools in the US, but I would hate to give up on music instruction in the schools because of budget limitations, discipline problems, or anything else.  Surely, not all of the children with extraordinary musical talent are from wealthy families who can afford private schools and private music teachers.  And I think it is possible that good music instruction, especially of music performance, could improve the climate and the level of discipline in the schools.  No, I don't know this for a fact--it's just my considered opinion. 

[owlice]

jochanaan, agree with everything you wrote.

Wilhelm, one of the special ed schools my ex and I looked at for our son used Kodály Method for their music instruction; I was very impressed by that. (Ex would have been, too, had he known what Kodály Method was! ). The school overall was very impressive, in fact. That's the only school I have seen personally which uses Kodály Method; a pity it's not used more extensively!

[Bulldog]

I am aware of the problems facing our public schools in the US, but I would hate to give up on music instruction in the schools because of budget limitations, discipline problems, or anything else.  

There you go again, discounting the importance of budget limitations.  When educational budgets are inadequate, music is one of the first things to go.

To me, the issue of whether music education should be required is an issue that doesn't recognize real life in public school systems.

[DavidRoss]

Yes, music education should be part of every curriculum from the very start.  We don't need to theorize about the value of the arts in producing well-rounded citizens to justify it, but need only look to the data regarding performance in all disciplines of students with music training vs students without.  Music training enhances cognitive development in almost every respect.  Increased cultural awareness is just a side effect.

[Todd]

Music education should be part of the standard curriculum for a variety of good reasons.  I'd even supprt cutting athletics to fund it.  However, as Bulldog points out, the real world of budgets means something has to be cut in many cases, and music is often one of the things to get cut.  In some areas, music and athletics both get cut.  That's unfortunate, but that's life.

Fortunately, where I live, music is part of the curriculum through elementary school and middle school, with high schoolers having the option to take music if they wish.  (Would that the district would see the light regarding teaching certain languages, like, say, Mandarin.)

[Dana]

      The tricky part is the word mandatory. A basic music education is a terrific thing to have, since music is as much a part of our world history and culture as the wars we've fought and the leaders we've elected, but once we start tossing words like 'compulsory' around, suddenly bigger questions need to be asked. Why is music required, but football isn't? Having a musical education is a great thing to have, but so is a working knowledge of electrical engineering, and I don't want someone else making me take that course that I'm not interested in.

[DavidW]

Football is not specifically required, but PE usually is.  Why not music?  The EE comparison doesn't work because that's specialized.  Appreciation for the fine arts is more basic, and required for breadth.  Certainly some students will not want to take it, and I say so what?  If you let the students decide they would do nothing but play video games.
 

[DavidRoss]

"Art appreciation" is a secondary reason for compulsory music education.  Better math skills, reading comprehension, writing skills, and critical thinking, plus improved socialization, discipline (what the word really means, please, don't get upset), and improved mental acuity in every respect are the reasons for including music training (not "appreciation") in the curriculum.

[Dana]

Football is not specifically required, but PE usually is.

      Well, the point wasn't football, but rather that once we say "music is mandatory," how many other neglected subjects will want to Tbecome mandatory as well? the administrator who says yes to music and no to every other subject that wants to become mandatory wouldn't be very popular - it'd be like being on the Olympic committee trying to decide which sports will be in the 2012 games. And what about the parents who truly believe that art education is superfluous? Do we foist our beliefs on them too?

[Todd]

And what about the parents who truly believe that art education is superfluous?

What about them?  I've met parents who think civics (or social studies, or social sciences, or whatever they are called in your part of the country) is politicized and should be taught less, if at all.  Using your reasoning, should the subject be taught?  And just what should mandatory subjects be?  Sometimes people in administrative roles need to make decisions that aren't loved by all, and here's a case (making music mandatory) where such a decision would be good. 

[DavidW]

And what about the parents who truly believe that art education is superfluous? Do we foist our beliefs on them too?

Yes we do, letting parental pressure influence policy is one of the reasons that public education has been on the decline, collapsing in on itself.  The truth is that 95% of the time parents open up their mouths to whine they say ridiculously stupid things, and make judgments about a classroom that they have not walked in and watched once.  They don't have the right to tell teachers how to do their job.  Would you like it if someone came in and told you (and they had no experience whatsoever) how to do yours?  Everyone thinks that they know about teaching just from being students, they don't realize how completely unqualified they really are to offer up opinions on education.

And you know what?  The kind of intelligent parent that might have useful advise is not the one that gets in your face.  It's the ones that want their kids to get an A, the overprotective ones, and the strange Newmans of the world.

[DavidW]

What about them?  I've met parents who think civics (or social studies, or social sciences, or whatever they are called in your part of the country) is politicized and should be taught less, if at all.  Using your reasoning, should the subject be taught?  And just what should mandatory subjects be?  Sometimes people in administrative roles need to make decisions that aren't loved by all, and here's a case (making music mandatory) where such a decision would be good. 

QFT, I would have seen this earlier if I wasn't ranting for so long!

[secondwind]

There you go again, discounting the importance of budget limitations.  When educational budgets are inadequate, music is one of the first things to go.

To me, the issue of whether music education should be required is an issue that doesn't recognize real life in public school systems.

Hi Bulldog,
(Nice bulldog, nice puppy. . .er, kitty? Anyway, don't bite, don't scratch. . . 0:))

I don't mean to discount the importance of budget limitations, I just mean to ignore budget limitations altogether temporarily for the purpose of considering the question of what we might want separately from  the question of what we have a snowball's chance in hell of getting.  I think there is value in knowing what you want and why you want it even when there appears to be no way you'll ever get it.  You may disagree with that point of view--lots of people do--but that's all I'm saying here. 

When it comes to the actual funding situation of most public schools in the US, you are absolutely right that when educational budgets are tight, which they frequently are, music is one of the first things to be cut.  And if the funding is absolutely limited to a certain level, even I might argue that it is right to cut music before math or reading, given that math and reading are more essential as survival skills in life and in the job market. 

But I would counter that funding for education doesn't need to be so limited, and that the solution isn't a redistribution of the relative pittance we give to the educational programs in the US now, but a redistribution of national wealth on a much greater scale, resulting in a lot more money being available for education of all kinds at all levels.  (Yelling and screaming over how that would work belong on a separate thread, probably in the Diner! ) 

[Todd]

They don't have the right to tell teachers how to do their job.

I partially disagree here.  I agree parents do not have a right, or at least don't have the qualifications, to tell teachers which teaching methods to use, and what to teach.  (If a parent wants his or her kids taught a specific subject not in the curriculum, then the parent can do it or hire others to do it.)  But part of a teacher's job is interacting with students on a more general level, and teachers who have trouble interacting with students, or behave inappropriately, need to be dealt with by parents and school administrators.  There's more to teaching than just imparting knowledge.